THE DEBATE about fatherhood is hopelessly wrong. Every month or so, as Batman and Robin scale fresh heights, it is cast afresh as a battle of the sexes over fathers not seeing their kids after a divorce. Meanwhile, as the general election approaches, a row rages within Labour over who should be promised what in the reform of maternity and paternity leave.

Different issues, but the same question: what should fathers get in relation to mothers? Unfortunately, it is the wrong question; indeed, a disastrous question for men, for women and for children. It poisons discussion on fatherhood, setting dads in competition with mothers — and perhaps children — for resources and sympathy. Everyone, including fathers, thinks the unfairer sex should be last into the lifeboats, yet we are made to sound selfish and greedy, grabbing our share of a government budget, and accused of wanting to divide up our children’s lives like the CD collection.

The wrong question of what we should give fathers creates a lot of heat, little light and has a simple answer. Not much. Forget fathers’ rights. Being a good dad is not about exercising rights. It is not about receiving goodies. It is about maximising what we can give to our children, be it love, money or a trip to see Shark Tale.

All of which brings me to the right question: what can we get out of fathers for the sake of their children? It sounds blunt, ruthless and Thatcherite, but this is how any government, prudent with the public purse, should be thinking. Set aside misty-eyed sentimentalism and focus on fatherhood as a vast resource, virtually free to the taxpayer. It could help to fix annoying problems that bedevil governments, from crime, low educational achievement and child poverty to blighted communities. It is as promising as another North Sea oil field.

You think I jest? Research demonstrates that children of involved fathers have better social skills by nursery age, do better at exams at 16 and are less likely to have a criminal record at 21. A released prisoner, if he gets stuck into fatherhood, is six times less likely to reoffend. And having a good father keeps you sane. The long-term mental health benefits are recorded in children, teenagers and adults.

We also know that children of an involved father, living with or separated from the mother, are better off financially. If he is a resource to his family, he is, typically, an asset also to his community and to his employer. And if you find a man who takes his caring responsibilities seriously, you will usually find his partner enjoying better opportunities to work. When he refuses to leave his fatherhood at reception on Monday morning, he offers fairer competition to female colleagues trying to balance work and motherhood.

There are elements in the Government that know all this: their stamp is on several recent policy documents on education and the NHS, which sing the praises of using fathers productively. But across Government, policy lacks a big picture and is characterised by incoherence and inconsistency.

Gordon Brown has created a policy supporting children that spends vast sums on tax-funded nursery places. This is vital for many parents, lone mothers in particular. But the Treasury has failed to ask the broader question: how do we get the most out of fathers of the under-fives? If it had, it would have copied Sweden and made leave entitlements transferable, so mothers returning to work could have the option of dad looking after his child rather than handing it over to strangers. Alas, the Treasury, perceiving fathers as undeserving claimants on state resources, has cast them crumbs, a little headline-grabbing paternity leave and has missed the chance to harness what they can offer.

So how would government policy change, if it were prudent about exploiting fatherhood? Every school would be like Pen Pych Primary in South Wales, which stays open in the evening to let fathers work with their children. Hospitals would copy the Princess of Wales Memorial Hospital in Grimsby, which recently rebuilt its maternity wing so that new mothers can stay with their partners until they are discharged, making fathers involved from the start. Health visitors would show new fathers how to support breast-feeding, how to nurse their partners after Caesareans and deal with postnatal depression.

Fathers leaving prison would, as in Doncaster, be “buddied” by other dads to ensure that they took up their responsibilities, so reducing recidivism and preventing their children falling into crime.

Ministers would have set tough national targets for father-involvement post-separation. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions recently visited Australia, which has pioneered high street centres offering support to both separated parents, advising them on everything from spotting symptoms of meningitis to organising a birthday party. We could do it too, yet here, McDonald’s does more to support children’s relationships with their separated fathers.

Not that the opposition parties are any better. They have little to say about harnessing fatherhood, save for hounding the Government after the Fathers4Justice protests. None has focused on the big picture, on the great task of exploiting this social capital for the benefit of children. If we care about children’s welfare, we need to adapt John F. Kennedy’s call to citizenship: ask not what the country can do for fathers, but what fathers can do for our children.

Jack O'Sullivan is a co-founder of Fathers Direct, the national information centre on fatherhood

Times Recommends

• In the real world, the public sector must pay
• Playing politics in a land of double Dutch
• Be like the plinth people: not set in stone